Was the French Revolution a good thing?

[Agit8r]

I'm just asking because the number of deaths (by conservative estimates in each case) was about the same as those following the US invasion of Iraq (if we count the royalist counterrevolution in Vendée) . The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm just asking because the number of deaths (by conservative estimates in each case) was about the same as those following the US invasion of Iraq (if we count the royalist counterrevolution in Vendée) . The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

The revolution was good, the lack of effective leadership immediately after and for several years was not.

 

[Saigon]

I think we have to conclude that it was a good thing in that it changed history forever.

The chant of 'liberty, fraternity, equality' is as important today as it was then. The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' are even more important today than they were then.

Whether it changed life in France much at street level at the time I have no idea.

 

[Agit8r]

I think we have to conclude that it was a good thing in that it changed history forever.

The chant of 'liberty, fraternity, equality' is as important today as it was then. The terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' are even more important today than they were then.

Whether it changed life in France much at street level at the time I have no idea.

I remember thinking during the last week, how bizarre it would be thought by people of that day, that the "democratic impulse" would eventually become associated with the dogmas of the political right.

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... it was a good thing...

... till dey didn't get to eat cake no more.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I'm just asking because the number of deaths (by conservative estimates in each case) was about the same as those following the US invasion of Iraq (if we count the royalist counterrevolution in Vendée) . The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

The intentions and reasons were justified, however, they were ruined because they tried to infuse the ideas of Classical Liberalism, Socialism and Authoritarianism (one-party zero-tolerence) all at the same time, also known as Jacobinism, which you can see clearly on this graph (although I would say in reality they were a fusion of Jacobinism and Fanaticism):

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Was the French Revolution a good thing?

I'm just asking because the number of deaths... [has been reported to be] about the same as those [since] the US invasion of Iraq... The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

The French Revolution occurred at the intersection of degenerate government and charter managed markets with famine and literal starvation. The French government, its chartered commercial enterprises and the bourgeoisie enforcing malignant public policy made no concessions collecting taxes, fees - and work - from France's literally starving population.

While it is amusing that some view the FR through the lens of human rights, the reality is more prosaic: some folks chose to die on their feet instead of on their knees. Among the happiest accidents in history is the French people generated sufficient critical mass to topple a degenerate bureaucracy.

Iraq has no connection to the French Revolution. Period. The number of people that died from old age in Spain since the US invaded Iraq is similar to the number of violent deaths in Iraq in the period - and has precisely the same connection to Bush League induced deaths in Iraq: none.

The only connection the French Revolution has to the modern world is so-called "Keynesian" economic policy. Modern governments give tax and fee concessions to rabble and pay them not to work, then publish torturous detail on government's benevolence. This buys modern government time to shore up its support networks, government workers and corporations - who then pit one section of partisan rabble against other sections to further reduce the possibility of a united populace turning on its oppressors.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm just asking because the number of deaths (by conservative estimates in each case) was about the same as those following the US invasion of Iraq (if we count the royalist counterrevolution in Vendée) . The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

I think this thread probably belongs in the history section.

No, I really don't think it or ANY revolution is a good thing.

I believe in change through evolution, not revoltuion.

Revolutions happen because societies don't evolve. France entered the Age of Enlightenment with a political system from the Middle Ages.

A lot of people worked very hard to keep 1% of the population living in luxury while many of them starved. Sound Familiar?

 

[editec]

If one reads this

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Old-Regime-Revolution-Volume/dp/0226805301/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y]The Old Regime and the Revolution, Volume I: The Complete Text: Alexis de Tocqueville, FranCois Furet, Francoise Melonio, Alan S. Kahan: 9780226805306: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

You may be surprised.

On the whole France was eventually better off with the parasitic Royals.

But, according to Alexis de Tocqueville the basic repressive interfering government bureaucracy really didn't much change after the revolution.


For those of us interested in how societies change over time the above is really a MUST READ book.

 

[JoeB131]

If one reads this

The Old Regime and the Revolution, Volume I: The Complete Text: Alexis de Tocqueville, FranCois Furet, Francoise Melonio, Alan S. Kahan: 9780226805306: Amazon.com: Books

You may be surprised.

On the whole France was eventually better off with the parasitic Royals.

But, according to Alexis de Tocqueville the basic repressive interfering government bureaucracy really didn't much change after the revolution.


For those of us interested in how societies change over time the above is really a MUST READ book.

Not really.

The French revolted because the average peasent didn't see much of a benefit from a monarchy that lived in huge palaces while they lived in Hovels.

Now, the French didn't win it in one fell swoop. When we talk about the French Revolution, we talk about the one of 1787, not the ones in 1830, 1848 or 1870. They got it right, eventually.

 

[JoeB131]

Another point.

The real problem with the French Revolution was not so much the revolution, but the world's reaction to it.

Britian, Russia, Prussia and Austria, not to mention the Papacy, were so horrified by it that they made war on France for nearly 30 years. So not surprisingly, instead of developing a sensible democracy, they just gave power to the most capable military guy they could find.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey how can chopping off the heads off evil rich people be a bad thing?

 

[JoeB131]

Hey how can chopping off the heads off evil rich people be a bad thing?

Funny you should mention that...

The ironic thing about the Guilotine was it's egalitarianism.

When the wealthy were executed, they were swiftly beheaded, while the poor were often drawn and quartered. In short, there was even inequality in the death penalty.

The Guilotine was designed to be more egalitarian and efficient. It was even seen as painless.

Even Louis XVI had a hand in its design, coming up with the slanted blade.

No problem, the Plutocrats totally fixed that. Now we just execute poor people.

 

[editec]

If one reads this

The Old Regime and the Revolution, Volume I: The Complete Text: Alexis de Tocqueville, FranCois Furet, Francoise Melonio, Alan S. Kahan: 9780226805306: Amazon.com: Books

You may be surprised.

On the whole France was eventually better off with the parasitic Royals.

But, according to Alexis de Tocqueville the basic repressive interfering government bureaucracy really didn't much change after the revolution.


For those of us interested in how societies change over time the above is really a MUST READ book.

Not really.

The French revolted because the average peasent didn't see much of a benefit from a monarchy that lived in huge palaces while they lived in Hovels.

A fair accessment

Now, the French didn't win it in one fell swoop. When we talk about the French Revolution, we talk about the one of 1787, not the ones in 1830, 1848 or 1870. They got it right, eventually.

True, more or less (France is STILL bureaucratic as hell, ya know?)

My musings on this question were addressing the overthrow of the monarchy.

The antimonarchist revolution's FAILURE to truly address the systemic problems of that society help explain why there were revolutions and counter revolutions that continued to change that society.

So bascically, I think you and I are on the same page and I appreciate that you went out of you way to ADD something VERY USEFUL to this discussion.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm just asking because the number of deaths (by conservative estimates in each case) was about the same as those following the US invasion of Iraq (if we count the royalist counterrevolution in Vendée) . The obvious difference being that the French Revolution was a conflict sparked internally by popular dissatisfaction.

The revolution was good, the lack of effective leadership immediately after and for several years was not.

History shows that people are better off under a monarchy than under democracy. They certainly pay a lot less in taxes

 

[Katzndogz]

Hey how can chopping off the heads off evil rich people be a bad thing?

It became a good thing when the revolutionaries started chopping the heads off one another.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey how can chopping off the heads off evil rich people be a bad thing?

It became a good thing when the revolutionaries started chopping the heads off one another.

I see. So you think that Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin should have had their heads chopped off?

Revolution without a clear goal and effective leadership often just puts in a new set of people with the same goals as the old set.